Hey "Doc", you and I are actually not far apart in our opinions on this. I only have a problem with the clown who doesn't vote out of laziness or unconcern. I cannot get ticked about a person who just refuses to select a candidate to vote for. Heck, I've been in the booth, and refused to vote for any candidate in a certain election. I myself can't see ever doing that for a presidential race, but let's not make it a capital crime if someone just can't support a candidate enough to vote for him/her. For instance, my number one issue is abortion. The Republican party may not be far off from nominating a pro-choice candidate. I WILL NEVER vote for a pro-choice candidate, regardless of party affiliation. You could argue that I could write in some no name, and I likely would. But, I wouldn't blame someone who thinks like me politically choosing to not vote.
Ian, you guys aren't supposed to be so upfront about this. Keep the evil scheming in the backrooms where it belongs.
Funny you'd dis a candiate over pro-choice, isn't that what a democratic society is about, choice? Now voting for someone who says you don't have a choice and "You will comply" is a little silly. OK I'm a guy but I think what a woman does with her body has nothing to do with some politician or party politics. There are other ways.
Frankly, I think Ian McCracken is Nicephoras' sock puppet. Who else would post such silly stuff just to make the republicans look like uncaring fools.
Voting is a right, not an obligation, therefore it is arguably umdemocratic to make it a forced act through a mandatory voting law. I do think that having a 'none of the above' choice would be a wonderful idea. I forget what the threshold is in Russia, but if the 'none of the above' reaches a certain percentage of the total votes, the vote is invalid and must be reheld. This would help lead to a viable system beyond our current two-party one (while I used to agree with Mill on the necessity of a two-party system due to the prevention of a tyranny of the minority and as a means to ensure moderation in policies, I no longer feel that is the choice we are faced with today). I do like the South Park analogy. A couple weeks ago in an email to my family I described how I was making my choice as being between sh!t and diarrhea(specifically the kind that gives you the cold sweats).
Welfare cheats shouldn't be encouraged to vote, they should be discouraged to vote. They would tend to vote for chumps who assume that they're honest people trying to find a job, like liberals. People like you and the others in this thread who disparage those who don't vote are simply self-flatterers who think that putting down others elevates their standing. It doesn't, it makes you annoying scolds. People who don't vote are delegating the decision to those who do. They are fully justified in believing that they are delegating to more responsible decision-makers and believing that the decision will turn out ok.
This is why arguing with liberals is such a pointless thing - you guys can't use the language like normal people. If you know of businessmen collecting welfare, by all means turn in the cheats. Or did you mean to say that all businessmen are welfare cheats? For a guy who claims to be able to read philosophy, you sure are sloppy with the language.
The idea of a welfare cheat can be broadly construed as someone who takes advantage of government programs unfairly. I am merely indicating to you that the idea is either outdated or just as applicable to businessmen who benefit from government handouts as it is to poor people. You probably won't get this, but most liberals aren't in favor of paternalistic theories of positive liberty like I expounded on earlier. But, hey, feel free not to argue any further. We won't be missing out on anything.
Smiley, is a welfare cheat scamming the gvt. for $272/mo (that's the payment for a 2-child household in NC) less deserving of the vote than, say, a painting contractor who underreports his income and rips the gvt. off for $5000 a year? Just askin'.
No - why do you ask? By the way, does that welfare tab include section 8 housing subsidies? Because around here, those can be over $2000 per month. At least you're a liberal who can tell the difference between a welfare cheat and a tax cheat. Thanks for not debasing the language like Chad.
Don't be ashamed, even your liberal-in-chief of a few years ago couldn't discern the meaning of "is" That's just part of being a liberal. Now, go to Wal-Mart and vote!
You are dense. Not all corporate welfare is through taxes. In any event, I never said I support welfare, as it is, for the poor. You need to do a better job reading and comprehending before you sling your poo, chimp.
I agree with you. It's a shame the Supreme Court doesn't. According to the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore (you know the case), "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." So, we don't in fact have the right to vote, forefathers be damned. . .
Yes, you'd better emigrate to a democratic country like Cuba before it's too late and they throw you in prison for not voting or something.
Wow, Clinton-on-the-stand jokes...how 20th Century of you. Too bad I'm not a Clinton fan, or there might have been the faintest of chances you could've 'got' me.
Silly you. Smiley321 clearly said "liberal-in-chief". He can't possibly be talking about Clinton, can he?
Not following you. . . I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting to have "a right to vote" in the US. You don't agree?
Well, Ok, this time I was being sloppy. But he did pretend to be a liberal, anyway. And liberals loved him, as if he was one of theirs. They even forgave him for losing the house and for welfare reform when it came time to turn a blind eye to all of his crimes.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with expecting it if you're a citizen, and if you feel like it's been stolen, then you should flee this tyranny. Or complain to the manager at the Wal-Mart nearest you, you can vote there.